To: Committee for Consultations on the Situation in Andhra Pradesh, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
To,
Shri Justice B N Srikrishna (Retd.)
Shri Vinod Kumar Duggal, IAS (Retd.)
Prof (Dr.) Ranbir Singh
Dr. Abusaleh Shariff
Prof (Dr.) Ravinder Kaur
Sub: Your response sought on Justice Narasimha Reddy (AP High Court) judgment.
Ref: 1) Report submitted by Committee for consultations on the situation in Andhra Pradesh.
2) Judgment pronounced by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.1569 of 2011 dt: 23-03-2011
Respected Members of the committee,
We are concerned citizens of Andhra Pradesh state, greatly interested in seeing an end to the current state of unrest and turmoil in Andhra Pradesh arising out of demand for a separate state of Telangana. We seek a solution that is established on the principles of Justice and Fairness enshrined in democracy.
We have gone through the copy of Judgment referred to above and are extremely disturbed with the thoughts induced by it. Pronounced by The Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy on 23rd March 2011, it raises serious questions on the integrity and intentions of members in the committee. The questions, left unanswered would contribute negatively to the prevailing atmosphere in the state and vitiate things further. We as concerned citizens are anguished by turn of events and would like to seek certain clarifications and your response to the following points being raised by us from each and every one of you as being members of the said committee. We expect truth and nothing but the truth from you.
Each and every one of you was appointed to the committee owing to your very high reputation as individuals of high integrity. Your appointment we assume was based on the belief that you all possess skills and objectivity to understand and guide the Government of India in finding right solutions to the burning problem.
The judgment referred to above casts serious aspersions on your integrities and motives individually as well as a group. The judgment if left unexplained by your group will strike at the basic foundations of trust people of this country have, on various mechanisms of governance.
Please do respond to the questions below, individually or collectively as per your convenience and conscience.
1) Was there a process by which contents of the report were approved and were the contents of the 8th Chapter approved through the process if it existed?
2) Was the 8th Chapter (VIII) of the committee report authored and approved by all the members? If No, who authored it and who all approved it?
3) Do you agree that the secret part of the report in the form of Chapter 8 is beyond the publicly given Terms of Reference (ToR) to the committee?
4) What prompted the committee members to prepare this note/Chapter 8 going beyond the given Terms of Reference (ToR) of the committee? Were any instructions given to the Committee by Government of India or its agencies to prepare a note of this nature?
5) The judgment opined in Paragraph 44 “The very purpose of appointing Commissions or Committees is to gather different views from the public and stakeholders, analyzing them with reference to evidence and other material, and to make a suggestion to the Government, enabling it to arrive at a just and proper conclusion. It is a different matter that the ultimate decision is to be taken by the Government and in a given case; the report can be ignored altogether. More than the conclusions, or recommendations of the Commission/Committee, it is the reasons, which prompted them to arrive at the conclusions that become very important. Even where a person is otherwise opposed to a particular conclusion or viewpoint, may become convinced, once the relevant reasons are known to him. Conclusions can be arrived at by the administrative authorities also. What makes them more acceptable to the public, is the reasons recorded therefore. Since the Committee or Commission of Inquiry has a wider and larger access to the public, the reasons are bound to be sound. They are the ultimate distillation of the enormous material, which the committee receives, in the course of inquiry”. Do you agree with the above opinion?
If yes - Paragraph 64 of the judgment says, “ The Committee discussed the issue of communal violence in its secret note. The subject is certainly a sensitive issue. As to source of information, it, however, observed, “The intelligence wing of the State Police and the I.B. will be more informed on this aspect”. This means that the Committee relied upon some other source, for its analysis, if not, for its recommendations. Though privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act was claimed, none of the ingredients thereof either pleaded or proved.” What were your sources for arriving at a conclusion on current scenario and recommendations on the issue of communal violence? Disclose them to validate your claims.
6) The supplementary note with three parts summarized under the sub-headings a) Political Management, b) Media Management and c)Full Preparedness are of a very dubious nature going by the contents exposed in the judgment. The contents clearly indicate that Committee Members took upon themselves the job of giving suggestions on how to quell the movement by using various “management” strategies. The recommendations give us the impression that committee members had ulterior motives in maintaining the “status quo”. This is nothing but violation of trust imposed in your committee by people of all regions in Andhra Pradesh to suggest a just solution by doing an impartial and dispassionate study. Do you agree and if you do not what is your explanation on the nature of contents in Chapter 8 and supplementary note?
6) How did the committee arrive at recommendations listed under “Media Management”? Do the members see the recommendations as being rooted in the spirit of democracy or otherwise?
7) We do not hesitate in saying that the contents of Chapter 8 of the report and its supplementary note, if true and have been arrived at unanimously by the committee members indicate that the members have acquiesced to pressures known only to them and have acted against principles and values of morality and prudence of the highest order imposed upon them by being members of the committee. Do you disagree?
We demand all of you to respond collectively and individually to vindicate your stand in coming out with a secret chapter and note that violate all known principles of neutrality and democracy expected from being members of a committee of this nature. Do not delay or avoid responding to our open letter, as it will be construed as a willful act of sabotage of democracy.
Awaiting your response and hoping out of hope that our trust in democracy and justice will be reaffirmed.
Sincerely,
The link to online petition is
